Re: a summary Quixote: You may just have one heck of a time getting a judge to put you on easy street over not providing you with the name of the person so long as they gave you the company name and address. You might ask the judge which side of the bed he got up on. (LOL)
Re: a summary If you are trying to get this removed from your report and you are certain that they will not be able to jump through hoops and give the CRA proof that you owe the debt, I would push the issue as much as possible with them. I did this and it worked, but I will for warn anyone who is dealing with the CRAs, ;that they do flag individuals who do this or who they believe are attempting credit repair for that matter..
Back to the debate. Hey Breeze, I reposted from the other thread to here. Unfortunately for you, I am back. (kidding). Life always interferes. Okay, back to the dreaded opinion letter at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/kosmerl.htm I think we can at least agree that even if you hold that the clock ticks from the time that the debt was charged off, making a payment does not re-age the debt. (At least I hope we can agree). Now about when the clock ticks.... here is a quote from that letter: So, in the first paragraph, they are saying that is is 180 days from the delinquency and in the second paragraph they are saying for all debts after 1997. So I grant you the 1997 date for determining the earliest date of the commencement of the delinquency. The letter goes on to explain what the "commencement of a delinquency" is: So, they are not saying the clock ticks from the date of the chargeoff, they are saying 180 days from the commencement of the delinquency, no matter when the charge off happens. In the case above, they are specifically saying 180 days from the time when the customer started to go late, they in no way refer to when the charge off happens. I also think that they are also just saying that prior to the reform of the bill they may have taken the late date that the lates were reported, like in the above example the 7 years would tick from 180 days from 11/91, instead of 7/91.
Re: Back to the debate. Right!! That's it. And I discovered where the other problem is - I quoted from the Amason letter but referenced the Kosmerle letter - that was Tylenol time, hahahaha. Brain was quitting on me. And that is why you couldn't find it. It's here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/amason.htm . Since Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1) provide new rules for calculating the 7-year period that became effective in 1997, do chargeoff accounts now have different obsolescence periods depending on when the chargeoff occurred? Yes. Section 605(c)(2) states that the section "shall apply only to items of information added to the (CRA) file of a consumer on or after" 455 days after enactment, or December 29, 1997. Therefore, a chargeoff reported to a CRA on or after that date is subject to the new commencement-of-the-delinquency method of calculating the obsolescence period set forth in Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1). On the other hand, a chargeoff reported to a CRA before December 29, 1997, is not covered by the new provisions, as discussed in one of the enclosed letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99). If a credit account was reported as a chargeoff before that date, the Commission's view has been that it can be reported for seven years from the date the creditor actually charged it off.(3) Sorry for the confusion. So, really, the 3 letters adress the same thing, each one going in a lightly different direction.
Re: Back to the debate. So they can use the date of the charge off. I also think this has something to do with reporting "paid charge off" as a status. because it was once a charge off, and is now being re-reported based on the new payment date.
Re: Back to the debate. They can use the date of the charge off if it happens to coincide with the 180 days from the *commencement of the delinquency* which led to the charge off. I'm not seeing how the letter says they use the charge off date. They don't mention anything about using the charge off date. Also, where does it say anything about a payment reaging the debt. Can you quote the specific verbage?
Re: Back to the debate. In any event, from the information that I have seen, the creditor reports the chargeoff to the CRA, and the CRA reports the record for 7 years. This is what I see in reality. I have one chargeoff, and it is being reported exactly in this way by Experian. Going by what the aforementioned FTC opinion letter states, the creditor would have to report the first of the last duration of delinquencies leading to the chargeoff to the CRA to accurately comply with the FTC's interpretation of what Congress "intended" when amending FCRA. LOL Do I think the creditor does this or even knows this? No. Would the CRAs even know how to track this date of deliquency or even be trusted to? No. The CRAs report the chargeoff for 7 years after the day of chargeoff because this is the easiest way for them to do it. If anyone has a chargeoff that they know is being reported for much less than 7 years from the actual chargeoff date, please share this information for further debate.
Re: Back to the debate. One correction. My chargeoff was made on 5/1998 and is scheduled to remain until 2/2005 (My bad). This is 90 days less than 7 years. I guess this would mean that the creditor wrote off the account at the 90 day late mark and correctly reported the "commencement of deliquency" as required below in FCRA 623 (a) (5). I moved on 12/97, so that accounts for the 90 days that the utility bill would have been late. It looks like they reported it correctly. Go figure. Also, I am pretty sure that I was late several months in a row prior to the chargeoff. Maybe I can contest the reporting period being wrong. Hehe. FCRA 623. (a) (5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action.
Re: Back to the debate. I dunno Kristy, it's like we're not reading the same letters. If that (what I just quoted) doesn't say for accounts reported as charged off prior to the enactment of the amended law, the date of the chargeoff can be used, I guess my blondness has overtaken me, and the whole thing is beyond my comprehension. As to the logic of it being a payment that triggers the beginning of a new 7 yr reporting period, I did post a "summary" of my logic leading to that conclusion (as I understood it) last night. Too many big words for me. I give up. You can have it your interpretation and I will have mine, LOL. GMDNATA (great minds do not always think alike).
Re: Back to the debate. Mike Sounds good to me, LOL. Maybe the FTC could give you an opinion letter on it, hahahahaha. Or more than one.
Re: Back to the debate. Well, MikeB, You do have a point if the CRA just wipes out the past history on the lates on the account and just puts "Account Charged Off" on date X, then you're right, the credit report doesn't show the late history. However, they don't always do this, sometimes they have both. I haven't had too many problems getting deletions when you can prove what the date of the first delinquency was. You have to be persistent and quote the rules. breeze: You're right, it seems that we can't agree on this matter, but hey that's ok.
? 7year rule/creditnet Is this statement accurate? "Under the old Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), credit bureaus would start the 7-year cycle over again when the consumer decided to pay off a negative account. This created a catch-22 since it provided little incentive to pay the debt. Under the new FCRA, credit bureaus and creditors cannot arbitrarily choose when to start the cycle. In fact, the FCRA requires that the clock begin at the first negative remark that initiated the incident. For example, if you quit paying an account in March and miss all of your subsequent payments through October at which time the creditor sends the account to collections, the credit bureau would be required to begin its seven year period in March when you skipped your first payment." <http://consumers.creditnet.com/cs/cr/faq/04.html>
Re: ? 7year rule/creditnet sorry I see PBM has set the edit feature only available for 1 minute...looking at the site the qoute is in response to the question " Does the 7-year limit start over after paying a debt? "
Re: ? 7year rule/creditnet Yes it is accurate. What you can run into now, and what we were discussing, is actually a little different, althought I think the discussion kind of jumped around, is what they do now with accounts that originally were reported delinquent prior to the amendment. Most of my problems occurred prior to the amendment (they are almost all gone now) but any activity on the account would restart the clock.
